What is an 'internet troll'?

[Alfred R Jones]

So who did Arthur Conan Doyle Libel?

Who said Arthur Conal Doyle had libelled anyone?  Faithlilly has as her avatar the statement "When a doctor does go wrong he is the first of criminals. He has nerve and he has knowledge" a quote from a novel by ACD in which he is describing a (fictional) murderous physician.  Faithlilly posts exclusively on the Madeleine McCann forum, in which she "only asks questions" about the parents of Madeleine McCann, both of whom are doctors by profession.  You join the dots if you're able....

[Mr Gray]

PS: I am reporting Faithlilly's avatar as I think it is the kind of avatar a troll would use on this forum, plus because of the forum it's being used on I would say it was also libellous.

I would say it would be more accurate to replace doctor with policeman

[slartibartfast]

Who said Arthur Conal Doyle had libelled anyone?  Faithlilly has as her avatar the statement "When a doctor does go wrong he is the first of criminals. He has nerve and he has knowledge" a quote from a novel by ACD in which he is describing a (fictional) murderous physician.  Faithlilly posts exclusively on the Madeleine McCann forum, in which she "only asks questions" about the parents of Madeleine McCann, both of whom are doctors by profession.  You join the dots if you're able....

Nah, a huge leap that. The statement "doctors can become great criminal" is not libellous.

[Mr Gray]

Nah, a huge leap that. The statement "doctors can become great criminal" is not libellous.

Doctors being extremely intelligent would be good at most things

[slartibartfast]

Doctors being extremely intelligent would be good at most things

So you agree not a libellous statement.

[Alfred R Jones]

Nah, a huge leap that. The statement "doctors can become great criminal" is not libellous.

libel by inference.  It doesn't take a great leap of intelligence to work out exactly what Faithlilly is implying.

[Alfred R Jones]

"Inferences and innuendoes are also prosecutable offenses and should be seen as dangerous as any direct statement. An inference is similar to an innuendo  – the crucial disparity is that an inference is a hidden suggestion recognisable to one without special knowledge, whereas an innuendo is a hidden meaning within a statement that may seem defamatory only to those with special knowledge" -

one has to ask oneself why, of all the ACD quotes she could have chosen, did Faithlilly specifically choose to display this one as her avatar?

[Alfred R Jones]

So you agree not a libellous statement.

I thought you might make quite a good Moderator, but I realise now that I was wrong.

[stephen25000]

Doctors being extremely intelligent would be good at most things

In childcare ?

[ferryman]

libel by inference.  It doesn't take a great leap of intelligence to work out exactly what Faithlilly is implying.

Artimus Jones:

http://mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/hulton-co-v-jones.html

So far as I'm aware, the precedent has never been superseded ....

[Alfred R Jones]

Artimus Jones:

http://mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/hulton-co-v-jones.html

So far as I'm aware, the precedent has never been superseded ....

Ah, good old Great Uncle Artemus....

[Alice Purjorick]

"Inferences and innuendoes are also prosecutable offenses and should be seen as dangerous as any direct statement. An inference is similar to an innuendo  – the crucial disparity is that an inference is a hidden suggestion recognisable to one without special knowledge, whereas an innuendo is a hidden meaning within a statement that may seem defamatory only to those with special knowledge" -

one has to ask oneself why, of all the ACD quotes she could have chosen, did Faithlilly specifically choose to display this one as her avatar?

The bit you Googled and cut and pasted is dated 2013. New legislation came into force in 2014. Are you satisfied what you posted remains applicable?

1Serious harm

(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

(2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

[misty]

Hmmm, despite being a no-news month yet again, August has seen the withdrawal of Stephen Birch, Miss L. Baulch and now Blacksmith from the fray. Sonia seems otherwise engaged losing a pearly-whites battle with Rylan on Daytime TV.
Which, as yet unpublicised, event has prompted the apparent beginning of the end?

[ferryman]

The bit you Googled and cut and pasted is dated 2013. New legislation came into force in 2014. Are you satisfied what you posted remains applicable?

1Serious harm

(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

(2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

So inferring that a doctor might try to cover up mistakes by nefarious criminal intent is not libellous?

Perhaps not, if no doctor (named) is likely to be identified by the statement ....

[Mr Gray]

The bit you Googled and cut and pasted is dated 2013. New legislation came into force in 2014. Are you satisfied what you posted remains applicable?

1Serious harm

(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

(2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

there can be no doubt that statements made  on this forum are likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the mccanns